TO THE PUBLIC.
THE following statements will fully explain the motives which induced the Editor to expose the crimes of the individual who is the subject of them. The demand for those numbers of the WEEKLY DISPATCH in which they appeared, was so great, that many hundreds of persons were unable to procure the papers, as no more could be printed than those which were called for on the days of publication. The Editor, therefore, wishing to extend his efforts in defence of religion and morality as widely as possible, by holding up to all mankind a true picture of a blasphemous hypocrite who is a contemner of the one and a violator of the other, has thought it advisable to publish the whole of his narratives and remarks in a separate pamphlet; to which are subjoined many additional facts that could not appear in a Sunday Paper. The reason this publication has been so long delayed was, in expectation that John Church would have been brought to trial in the beginning of June, for an abominable offence with which he stands charged and committed, but as there is some reason to suspect that this trial will be put off even at the ensuing Sessions for the County of Middlesex, the public curiosity cannot be kept any longer unsatisfied.
June 30, 1813.
JOHN CHURCH,
THE OBELISK PREACHER.
Extract from the Weekly Dispatch of April 18.
Among the various duties of a newspaper editor, one of the most arduous is, that of determining what sort of domestic events it may be useful to cover over with a veil of silence, and what sort are they, of which the concealment would operate as an injury to the public. Occurrences will often take place in private life, which, on every principle of moral expediency and justice, ought never to be born beyond the threshold of the place where the parties reside. And, on the other hand, there are certain acts, which, if passed over without notice by civil authority, or animadversion on the part of the press, may produce evils destructive to society. Another laborious task imposed on a journalist is the dilemma in which his duty to the public and his fear of offending the delicacy of individuals, frequently places him, when he is about to record events which cannot be suppressed without doing a serious injury to public morals. [5] I am well aware that things must not be related in all that naked grossness of truth, which a legal tribunal requires for promoting the ends of justice; and that as much delicacy as is consistent with correctness of information, is necessary in narrations of the sort to which I allude. This has been the principle on which I have uniformly acted in the conduct of this paper. But to suppress in a newspaper the publication of a fact which meets the eyes and ears of all people would be at once absurd and mischievous. For instance, in the month of October, 1810, 6 or 7 miscreants were placed in the pillory in the presence of many thousand spectators; they were then conveyed through the most public streets in an open cart, during which time they were pelted with mud and dirt by an indignant populace: all the inhabitants of the streets viewed this disgusting exhibition from their windows; and could it have been possible—nay, must it not have been mischievous to conceal from any body the crime for which these culprits were then punished? How foolish then would it have been for any reader of a newspaper to be offended at seeing it mentioned in print?
I have thought it necessary to preface with these remarks, the narrative of facts which I am now about to relate; and which I should at present abstain from noticing were it possible to give them publicity through the medium of any court of justice. But as two eminent counsellors [6] have given an opinion against the legal practicability of such a procedure, for reasons which I shall presently state; and as in the mean time the public morals may suffer;—the press must on this occasion interpose as their guardian.
The readers will recollect having seen in last Sunday’s Dispatch, a report of the proceedings before the magistrates at Union Hall, when a conventicle preacher of the name of Church complained of a riotous mob having assembly near the entrance of his Chapel at the Obelisk in St. George’s fields, and attempted to commit violence upon him and his congregation. That report was copied from a daily paper, and was very imperfectly stated. I have since then, made a full enquiry into all the circumstances of this case; and I shall now briefly state them from authentic documents, that are ready to be produced if necessary. For a considerable time past, the person just named has been getting a living by preaching as a Minister of the Gospel in an obscure conventicle close to the Surrey Theatre. In the mean time, reports had gone abroad that he was addicted to certain abominable propensities, and certain gentlemen in the neighbourhood, not actuated by any jealousy towards a successful “rival in the vineyard,” as the Union-hall report falsely stated, but dreading the disgrace and pollution which Christianity might suffer from the immoral character of any of its teachers, investigated these rumours; and the facts I shall now relate came to light. James Cook, who kept the infamous house in Vere Street, was released from his two years imprisonment in Newgate, on the 21st of September last. In the course of a few days after, I understand, he accidentally met John Church, and recognized him as the gay parson, whom he had formerly seen at a certain house in the London Road, and at his own house in Vere Street. A friendly correspondence then took place between these two old acquaintances. About the 13th of October, Cook received a letter, of which a fac simile has been published in St. George’s fields, [7] and of which I have seen the original in Church’s own handwriting, (having compared it with other writings of his). In this the Minister of the Gospel offers his assistance to the “Vere Street Culprit,” to enable him to set up another public house, as the reader will perceive from perusing the letter itself:—
Dear Sir,
Lest I should not have time to call on you or converse with you as I shall not be alone to Day I thought it But Right to Drop you a Line I wish you all the success you can desire in getting a house fit for the Business in the public Line and as you had a great many acquaintance, they ought not to fail you if evey one acted right according to there ability I am sure you would soon accomplish it. As I am By no means Rich, But rather em barrassed I hope you will acept my mite towards it 1l. 1s. and you shall have another as convenient wishing all prosperity,
I Remain Your’s, sincerely,
J. Church.for Mr. Cook, at mr. halladays Richmond Budgs Dean St.
There is another letter bearing the two-penny post mark of the 20th of October, which I have also seen.—It is as follows:—